Jesus teaching about the future - some scholarly opinions

The purpose of this paper
is to show that there is a good deal of scholarly opinion that in
Matthew 24 (and Mark 13, Luke 21) Jesus is referring to the signs
pointing towards his Second Coming, as well as to the destruction of
Jerusalem in AD70.

There are three main views about these chapters:

1. Jesus was only speaking about the
events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD70.

2. Jesus was only speaking about the signs of the return of Christ.

3. Jesus was speaking about both.

In my paper on “Can we ignore what the New Testament says about signs of Jesus’ return?” (see
http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/CanWeIgnoreSingsOfJesusReturn.pdf )
I added an appendix critiquing the views of N T Wright. He claims
that these chapters which have long been understood as referring to a
still future return of Jesus in glory actually refer to the triumphal
entry of Jesus into Jerusalem
and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

In my paper “Which aspects of the teaching of Jesus on the Mt of Olives
refer to the Second Coming?” (see
http://www.christianteaching.org.uk/blog/?p=349#_edn1) I refer to the
views of Dick France. He and others interpret “the Son of man coming on
the clouds of heaven” as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14 in which Jesus
is not referring to his return to earth but as “coming to God to
receive vindication and authority.”[1] They interpret “all the peoples
of the earth” mourning when they see the Son of man returning as “all
the tribes of the land” (i.e. Israel) mourning at the events of AD70.
They see the angels gathering the elect as the worldwide growth of the
church after AD70 and the kingdom being preached to all nations as
meaning only those nations known and reached between AD30 and AD70.

I give my reasons for rejecting interpretations 1. and 2. above and for
believing that Jesus is speaking both about AD70 and about his future
return in my two papers. Then I came across a paper I wrote some 20
years ago which recorded a fair amount of scholarly opinion on the
matter and which I have updated. I include this material below as an
appendix to the above papers. These scholars may differ on their
interpretation of various aspects of the Olivet discourse but they do
relate the passage to the events leading to the Return of Christ as
well as to those of AD70.

Professors W D Davies and D C Allison in the International Critical
Commentary on Matthew write that they are “unpersuaded” by Dick France
that Matthew 24 is only about the events around AD70.[2]

They write: “

“Our own view holds that w. 4ff. are
a depiction of the entire post-Easter period, interpreted in terms of
the messianic woes.21 This means that the discourse, which freely mixes
experience with topoi [literary conventions], concerns the past, the
present, and the future. What has happened will continue to happen and
only get worse: ‘the mystery of lawlessness is already at work’ (2
Thess 2.7). Whether the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 is directly referred
to in vv 15ff. or is instead indirectly included in the tribulations of
vv. 15ff. we are uncertain. But if the former, AD 70 does not exhaust
the significance of vv. 5ff, which plainly envisage eschatological
events to come. So the answer to the disciples’ two-part question in v.
3 is this: the temple will be destroyed during the tribulation of the
latter days, which runs from the first advent to the second; and after
that tribulation the end—whose date cannot be known—will come.”[3]

Professor Leon Morris says:

“There is a problem for the
student in that sometimes what Jesus says refers to the coming judgment
on Jerusalem, a judgment that was consummated in the destruction of the
city in A.D. 70, and sometimes what he is saying refers to the judgment
at the end of the age.We may well argue that there is a theological
unity between the two judgments, and that some of what Jesus says could
apply equally well to both.”[4]

He adds:

“Some commentators take the whole
discourse to refer to a single judgment. They hold that Jesus
confidently expected his return within a comparatively few years and
that there would be a judgment on Jerusalem as part of the judgment of
the whole world. But the language used is against this. Far from
promoting speculations that he would soon return in glory, Jesus seems
to be discouraging this kind of thing (cf. vv. 6,8,14, and 23-28). And
we should not overlook the important fact that he said quite plainly
that he did not know the date of his coming back (v. 36). If he did not
know it, how could he say confidently that it would occur within a few
years?”[5]

Professor F D Bruner writes:

“The emphasis in Matthew’s version of
the sermon is certainly on the end of the world, but the destruction of
Jerusalem is everywhere that end’s classic precursor. Thus Jesus’
sermon about current events, especially the imminent destruction of
Jerusalem, becomes a window through which to see Jesus’ view of end
events, especially the coming of the Son of Man … The destruction of
Jerusalem was the prototype of the end of the world … we most
profitable read Matthew’s sermon when we read it in this irridescent
way, seeing both Jerusalem’s end and Jesus’ coming in most texts, not
always being sure which of the two events is meant …”[6]

Professor Robert Mounce says:

“It is helpful to remember that
apocalyptic literature is a genre that does not share our Western
concern for orderly continuity. If we allow Matthew the freedom to
enlarge on a specific discourse delivered by Jesus by adding material
from other settings, we are not at all surprised to find the chapter as
fluid as it appears. It is not uncommon for prophetic material to move
between type and antitype without calling attention to exactly what is
happening. Predictions of the future were of necessity couched in
language taken from the prophet’s own setting.”[7]

He adds: “Biblical prophecy is capable of multiple fulfillment.”[8]

Professor Douglas Hare writes of Matthew 24:

“….it speaks of a series of future events climaxing in the arrival of Jesus in glory…..”[9]

He adds that the prediction of the destruction of the temple

“provides the basis for the
apocalyptic discourse, which addresses two fundamental concerns of
early Christians: When will Jesus come in glory, and what are we to do
in the meantime? The structure, accordingly, is relatively simple: (a)
events prior to the great tribulation (24:3-14); (b) the abomination
and the great tribulation (24:15-28); (c) Jesus’ coming in glory
(24:29-31); (d) the time when all this will happen (24:32-44); (e)
three parables about faithful waiting (24:45—25:30); and (f) the
judgment of the pagans (25: 31-46).”[10]

He also writes:

“It is sometimes argued that for
Matthew the events of verses 15-21 have already occurred: ‘the
abomination of deso­lation’ refers either to the siege of Jerusalem or
to the final capture of the temple by the armies of Titus and the
offering of pagan sacrifice on the holy site; the flight that follows
is either the migration of the Jerusalem church to Pella east of the
Jor­dan prior to the siege or the escape of refugees following the fall
of the city; the great tribulation of verse 21 describes the desperate
situation in Palestine in the months following the Roman victory. All
of this is most improbable. The flight of which verses 16-20 speak is
not any historical event, and most certainly not the escape of refugees
from the burning capital in the summer (not winter) of 70 C.E. It is
not clear why Matthew’s version adds ‘nor on a Sabbath’ in verse 20,
since it seems to acknowledge that the flight will take place whether
it is winter or on a Sabbath or not, but it certainly indicates that
the event has, for Matthew, not yet taken place; there would be no
point in praying about a past event. No, it is best to treat these
various events as representing familiar apocalyptic motifs.”[11]

He adds that in view of the teaching about the “man of lawlessness” in
2 Thess 2:3-4 who “sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself
to be God”

“It seems likely, therefore, that
Matthew understands the abomination of desolation as referring to some
supernatural Antichrist.”[12]

Professor R V G Tasker quotes B C Butler with approval:

“Matthew xxiv. 5-14 gives a
straightforward anticipation of the whole of future history (in
reference to the question about the consummation of the age), warning
the disciples that secular catastrophes must not be taken as signs of
the imminent end of history; forecasting, briefly, the world’s
persecution of the Church; and working to a poignant climax which
foretells defections from the Church, false prophets and spiritual
decay and treason within the Christian body itself,… and reaching its
culmination in the prophecy of the universal proclamation of the gospel
of the kingdom—‘and then will come the end.’”[13]

Professor C E B Cranfield,
writing on the parallel passage, Mark 13, says that it is an
eschatological prediction of the End leading to the return of Christ.
He writes that although we must take careful note of Jesus’ teaching
and we cannot know the time of his return we must nevertheless take
note of the signs of the End:

“To disregard the signs of the End as
a mere relic of Jewish apocalypticism is to be in danger of reducing
eschatology to something purely academic and of losing sight of its
relevance to the present. For the signs are reminders in the midst of
history of the coming Lord.”[14]

He continues:

“It may well be asked whether the
disparagement of this chapter by much recent scholarship has not
resulted in a serious impoverishment and weakening of the Church’s
life. Its insistence on the signs is perhaps a help to faith and
obedience that we cannot afford to dispense with; for the recognition
that the events of history are signs of the End and pointers to the
coming Lord rescues eschatology from the realm of merely academic
discussion and makes it relevant for faith and obedience. As our faith
recognizes the signs as they occur, we are again and again put in
remembrance of our Hope, and our gaze, that is so easily distracted
from the Lord who is coming to us, is again and again directed back to
him. The events of the present become for us reasons for lifting up our
heads (Lk. xxi. 28) and so many summonses to renewed penitence,
obedience and joy.”[15]

He goes on to point out that 2 Thess 2:3-10 supports the identification
of the “abomination that causes desolation” with the Antichrist. He
says that neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively
eschatological interpretation is satisfactory but rather a mingling of
the two.[16]

Scholars also comment on the difficult verse: “Truly I tell you, this
generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have
happened” (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30).

The interpretation of “generation” (“genea”) in Matthew 24:34

Professor Robert Gundry makes a very helpful comment on Jesus’ condemnation of the Jewish leadership in Matthew 23:29-36:

“Retribution for all the righteous
blood of the OT martyrs will take the form of the tribulational events
yet to be described as fulfilling the forecast concerning ‘this
generation.’ By context ‘this generation’ means the scribes and
Pharisees (‘lawyers’ in Luke). Matthew’s next verse narrows the
reference further to the scribes and Pharisees in Jerusalem. But his
involving them in the by­gone murder of an OT prophet (v 35) shows that
he does not take ‘this generation’ in a sense chronologically limited
to Jesus’ contemporaries, but in a qualitative sense concerning the
‘unbelieving and perverted’ in the whole of Israel’s history (see
11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17 and synoptic parallels for the
same qualitative emphasis in pre-Matthean tra­dition; cf. 24:34; Mark
13:30; Luke 21:32). Hence, we read, ‘in order that on you may come …
you murdered [for a centuries-old incident]… will come on this
generation.’ In other words, if the ‘you’ who constitute ‘this
generation’ includes those who murdered Zechariah in OT times, ‘this
generation’ can hardly bear the chronological limitation usually
imposed on it cf. Ex 20:5 34:7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9.”[17]

The inference is, of course, that if “this generation” in 23:36 is
clearly not chronologically limited to the literal present generation,
the same is true of “this generation” in 24:34.

Professor Robert Mounce writes:

“If genetai (happened) is taken as an
ingressive aorist, the sentence would indicate that before the
generation alive at the time had died, all things described in
connection with the end will have started to take place.”[18]

Leon Morris quotes Professor D A Carson as saying:

“All that v.34 demands is that the
distress of vv.4-28, including Jerusalem’s fall, happen within the
lifetime of the generation then living. This does not mean that the
distress must end within that time but only that `all these things’
must happen within it.”[19]

Dr David Hill quotes Professor C H Dodd:

“It is probable that we have here an
example of that `shortening of historical perspective’ which is so
frequently in the prophets. ‘When the profound realities underlying a
situation are depicted in the dramatic form of historical prediction,
the certainty and inevitability of the spiritual processes involved are
expressed in terms of the immediate imminence of the event’”[20]

Donald English comments on Mark 13:

“The best solution to hold together
all the diverse considerations in [Mark 13] seems to be that which
joins to the destruction of Jerusalem and the ultimate Parousia as two
parts of God’s one activity, the former prefiguring the latter.
The `signs of the end’ begin when Jesus’ ministry is complete and
Jerusalem’s destruction was terrible evidence of the end times. Jesus’
generation would see that, and proleptically would be recipients of the
promise of the rest.”[21]

Robert Mounce writes about Matthew 24:34: “One
thing we do know is that by the time Matthew wrote, the mission of the
Twelve was history and the parousia had not taken place.”[22] It is not
likely therefore that Matthew was referring to the AD30-70 generation.